When I hear "Facebook," I immediately think of Zuckerberg. I'm guessing a lot of the reporters out there are making the same correlation. I wonder, though, is this something he knew about (or, rather, did he know about a PR campaign but not of this nature)? It seems a bit out of character for a guy who has been portrayed as being a very calm and calculated person. I wonder if this was just a bit of activity in the PR room that didn't get to the top before it was released...
Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google
41–50 of 150 posts
Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google
#42They are too young of a company to be pulling this sort of seedy stuff. Also ‘privacy’?! I hope the irony isn’t lost on anyone. It wasn't very well thought-out, as when a net privacy panic starts spreading like wildfire through the media the consequences in political grandstanding and potential legislative action would hurt them as well. So they come out of this looking like data-locking propaganda spreading assholes…
They are too young of a company to be pulling this sort of seedy stuff. Is there a time in a company's existence when it's "ok" to do something like this?
I don't think it was meant to be "ok" but more in line with the last ditch effort. Older companies might feel as though they have pulled all the stops and this is their last effort to make an impact.
I am not saying it is okay, just trying to shine some light on what I think yanw meant.
Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google
#43From the Daily Beast article: First, because it believes Google is doing some things in social networking that raise privacy concerns; second, and perhaps more important, because Facebook resents Google’s attempts to use Facebook data in its own social-networking service. So, just to get this straight: Facebook resents that Google use's "Facebook data" in Social Circles, when I as the user have to explicitly allow Go…
Doesn't Facebook have an import gmail contacts feature?
Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google
#44I wonder what the ex googlers who moved to FaceBook think of such slimy tactics. Might be interesting to hear the perspective of someone who moved from a company that (at least) professes an adherence to "Don't be evil" to a company that apparently has no problems with jumping into the slime. If I worked for Facebook, I'd be ashamed of my employer today (and would probably protest and then get fired!). And, as someon…
It's not like this is the first evil thing Facebook has done.... there might be some who might argue that yanking around Facebook's defaults about users' privacy settings was far worse than using a PR sock puppet. Personally, I think using (or perhaps we should say, trying to use) a PR sock puppet was cowardly, and trying to bash a competing product by spreading anonymous innuendoes was crass. But not all would agree…
Just because something is legal doesn't forbid you from thinking it's cowardly or crass. Facebook are free to do distasteful things, but - and here's the important part - we are free to condemn them for doing so. Forbidding us from sharing our opinions because "hey, it's legal" is a self-defeating argument.
Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google
#45Good ol' Arrington... he's got the courage to call em out. To really stick it to the big guys. It takes guts to say "No More!" to the corrupt and the wicked, even when such a stance might cost you personally. I was going to comment as such on his blog... ...but I don't have a facebook account. ;)
wow, I've never seen that before - you comment through your facebook login? That's... that's just evil.
Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google
#46I see no difference, or impact on my life, between this Google/Facebook billionaire's catfight and any Twitter-borne beef between two or more millionaire celebritainers.
Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google
#47A key saying I provide all my clients with in regards to corporate culture and behaviours: a fish rots from the head. Usually this means things like 'if the boss is ten minutes late to every meeting, staff will assume it's acceptable for everyone to be ten minutes late to a meeting'. Given Zuckerbeg's reputation for sneaky behaviour and this example of his PR team, I now have an excellent example to share in the futu…
At least, I can say I called it, when people were blaming Microsoft as behind it.
Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google
#48From the Daily Beast article: First, because it believes Google is doing some things in social networking that raise privacy concerns; second, and perhaps more important, because Facebook resents Google’s attempts to use Facebook data in its own social-networking service. So, just to get this straight: Facebook resents that Google use's "Facebook data" in Social Circles, when I as the user have to explicitly allow Go…
Doesn't Facebook have an import gmail contacts feature?
Not anymore, they took that off a while ago. Funny thing is for a while the gmail logo still appeared even though when you clicked it to import via gmail it didn't have the option.
Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google
#49From the Daily Beast article: First, because it believes Google is doing some things in social networking that raise privacy concerns; second, and perhaps more important, because Facebook resents Google’s attempts to use Facebook data in its own social-networking service. So, just to get this straight: Facebook resents that Google use's "Facebook data" in Social Circles, when I as the user have to explicitly allow Go…
Doesn't Facebook have an import gmail contacts feature?
Not anymore. It was removed after Facebook wouldn't share data back to Google.
Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google
#50A key saying I provide all my clients with in regards to corporate culture and behaviours: a fish rots from the head. Usually this means things like 'if the boss is ten minutes late to every meeting, staff will assume it's acceptable for everyone to be ten minutes late to a meeting'. Given Zuckerbeg's reputation for sneaky behaviour and this example of his PR team, I now have an excellent example to share in the futu…
True. It's worth mentioning that this fish-rots-from-the-head theory also applies to Google's top management and their views over privacy.
I think that was a part of Google's problem. There was a schism within top management, including on that topic.